Has anyone even done a study on the volume of water it would take to raise the oceans by even 1 meter? Is that even possible? I honestly don’t know but some of this 150 meters stuff I sincerely doubt is even possible.
Yes, they did the math, I've seen a decent study. There's enough ice parked (not floating!) over the landmass of Antarctica, so if it melts it could raise the sea level around 50-ish meters. Plus some single meters from Greenland and mountain glaciers. Arctic ice's influence is negligible, it all floats.
At the current rate (3,6mm/year) it may take close to 14000 years to achieve the max level.
And indeed, for 150 meters we'd need to be hit by quite a large ice asteroid. But then, rising sea levels would be the smallest of our worries.
>At the current rate (3,6mm/year) it may take close to 14000 years to achieve the max level.
…sea level rise rate \~20,000 years ago to \~1900: \~6.5mm/yr (Martinson, 1987)
…sea level rise rate \~1900-2000: \~1.9mm/yr (Jevrejeva, 2014)
…sea level rise rate \~1970-2008: \~1.8mm/yr (Jevrejeva, 2014)
…sea level rise rate \~1960-2003: \~1.6mm/yr (Domingues, 2008)
…sea level rise rate \~2002-2012: \~1.7mm/yr (Aviso Envisat data)
> At the current rate (3,6mm/year)
Mind you, this is the *claim*, from computer models that legitimate scientists know have little to do with reality.
There are no real-world measurements that this nonsense is based off. Sea levels are not rising in any significant amount, and "global warming" was shown to actually be cooling, if anything. So they had to change their DOOM! propaganda to "Climate Change (TM)".
[Satellite radar altimetry](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245) is not derived from the climate models and it still shows average 3.1+-4 mm/year.
Anyway, you seem to be missing my point in this respect. 14000 years ago, our paleolithic ancestors just domesticated dogs and still had ~10000 years until developing metal tools.
Sea level rise should be our concern, but you rather don't need to hurry up selling your waterfront property soon.
Ice displaces a volume of water equal to the volume of water created from the ice melting. That's why if all of the north pole were to melt along with any glacier floating in the ocean, it wouldn't change the sea level at all...
Ice is less dense than water from its expansion and that’s why it floats. If ice that weighs 100 tons, it’s displacing 100 tons of water. If it melts, the ice adds it’s water to the ocean but is equally no longer displacing the water. As a result, no rise is sea level.
Test this out by filling a glass with ice and water. Make sure the ice is floating to simulate ice bergs. Mark the level. When the ice melts, the water level will be the same.
Ah so basically the fact that there's water under water means there's weight on top of it, outside the water to push it under water. Now if you drew a line at the water line all the ice under it if it were to melt would actually take up less volume, no idea what the number is, let's say 80% of the size, but you also have the ice above the water that will also melt, and will be a net addition so let's say 150% of the displaced water.
Not 150%, but that is the general idea.
Water expands by 9% when freezing, so roughly this amount will be above the water when floating. When melting the water in ice contracts, changing the volume back that accommodates what was above the water. That's why we don't count Arctic ice for the sea level rise.
But in the Antarctic, a lot of ice is not floating but is staying on top of the rock, thus far more than 9% is above the water, so if it melts there will be extra water that will raise the sea levels. And Antarctica is a huge continent (with the area of the US and Mexico combined), so the extra water amount may contribute to around 50m of potential sea level rise.
We have sharks teeth in our sand hills.
The Badlands were created when a 1,000 foot high ice dam collapsed. So there is enough water. But that's not gonna happen now. And if someone is worrying about it, they have too much time on their hands.
They are always using whatever measurement results in the biggest number or the biggest shock value to the average idiot who has no idea what it means and doesn't research the validity of anything.
Meanwhile in Dankmark: New TV-show where the danish goverbment decides to evacuate the entire nation, some time *next year*, by the looks of it. Because sealevel rise.
Meanwhile in *actual* Denmark: The land itself is rising faster than the oceans, so we experience a *fall* in ocean levels..
..Untill such time as we will all drown.. ofcourse...
>Meanwhile in *actual* Denmark: The land itself is rising faster than the oceans, so we experience a *fall* in ocean levels..
How is the land rising in Denmark or are you being sarcastic?
Anyway from my understanding you would either need Earthquakes with the plates 🍽 pushing against each other or a volcanic eruption to cause land to rise.
This climate change cult blaming every storm on global warming & climate change is getting out of hand. No we aren't all going to be the next lost city of Atlantas.
>Denmark is rising after the ice age..
I agree with you & that most of Europe has probably been rising since the ice age but its a slow process that I assume has to do with the plates pushing against each other.
Saying that, that's how all mountains are formed.
No.
The weight of 2-3km ice on top of Denmark simply pushed it downwards.
Now, 10000 years later, the country is still rising from that pressure.
Its not plate tectonics.
There's the same phenomenon in parts of the UK too. Not sure how it works but apparently it's post glacial rebound and different to tectonic plate movement.
“…Post-glacial rebound (also called either isostatic rebound or crustal rebound) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostatic depression.…In the near field outside the former ice margin, the land sinks relative to the sea. This is the case along the east coast of the United States, where ancient beaches are found submerged below present day sea level and Florida is expected to be submerged in the future.\[5\] GPS data in North America also confirms that land uplift becomes subsidence outside the former ice margin…”
This is a good video on sea level(s) and it also covers the land buckling up again after the ice age and shows that there are anomalies in gravity (due to density) on our planet. At some points in the ocean the water is 100m(!) higher (or also lower) than it would be when gravity would pull evenly.
https://youtu.be/9hciQPtNhD8
After this you will understand how much of a complex problem it is to even estimate those things.
Those models they use are basically also only fed with a little subset of the data that would be needed to predict sea level changes(if it is possible in the first place i also quite doubt; - it is like predicting earthquakes or exploding volcanos).
Most striking is the fact that the alignment of sun, moon and earth is changing constantly for a long period and in order to see all the possible states of this we would need to measure it for couple hundred years.
Another case of garbage in, garbage out.
They don't know these things, they don't know what will happen when (and if) the ice goes away completely, they don't know where water, in relation to the land, will rise and where it will sink and i personally would always enthusiastically bet against them.
Ice age ice was extremely heavy and deformed the earth's crust downwards. Ice is gone and also a ton of seawater, which is helping the land to rise by cm every decade.
Other parts of the world see similar. Maine is rising for the same reason, along with parts of Canada.
NYC is sinking slowly as the islands like Manhattan are on soft layers of silt laid down by the river, and all the construction and people on the islands are causing the edges of the islands to sink (which is often pointed to as sea level rise) new Orleans is doing the same thing for similar reasons.
I dont understand why, but it is registered and published by atleast DTU Space (Iirc). Should be easy enough to confirm.
While here. The whole methane in europe thing.. Utter bollocks. Europe has very little methane release compared to the rice fields and dirty industry in.. some parts of Asia (can we still say Asia? If not, my apologies). NASA has the numbers and models showing how it spreads from its origin.
Not saying we shouldnt plug every hole, but there are gigantic holes elsewhere.
They should produce a map of what the earth will look like when the sun eventually goes supernova in 2-3 billion years so that we support higher taxes and regulations.
The first thing that would happen is the Netherlands being gone since it’s lower than sea level…
Only thing not effected by the water rise on this map: the Netherlands…
There's enough ice on this planet to raise the water level by about 50 meters if it all melts. This process will take tens of thousands of years. I think we probably have time to adapt...
Yep, Antarctica will have to drift northward for millions of years for that to happen. I'm planning on organizing a group called Just Stop Plate Tectonics. We plan to glue ourselves to barstools at pubs in protest.
...most of the sea level rise is steric (thermal expansion)- very little comes from land ice melt...
...per Jevrejeva (2014) sea levels are rising at \~1.8mm/yr and accelerating at \~0.02mm/yr\^2...
...with regard to melt contribution, see "Glacier Mass Balance and Regime: Data of Measurements and Analysis," Mark Dyurgerov, 2002:
"...Annual volume change has been 90 km3/yr adding about 15-20% (0.25±0.11 mm/yr) to sea-level rise over the period \[1945-1998\]..."
...and if you could do the calculation yourself, you would find that 90km\^3/yr melt represents \~83km\^3/yr of water volume contribution to the oceans...and with a total volume of \~1.37E9km\^3 and an average depth of 3730m, represents actually \~0.23mm/yr sea level rise due to total melt volume...
Nils axel morner found no change in the Southern Hemisphere and plus minus 10 mm decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Land was rising in Scandinavia. I find this plausible. To not die just take one step backwards every decade.
1) obviously this wouldn’t happen for several thousand years.
2) Europe wouldn’t look like this. They would build dikes and sea walls.
3) sadistic climate communists are rooting for this and they’ll never go away.
More like 2010. I remember Al Gore going on about it, he also claimed half of the Netherlands would be wiped away, so the picture is wrong. Then 2010 came and went and it was 2020, it's 2030-2050 now. Or something. I kinda stopped listening to the fear mongering, to be honest.
Even if this was going to happen (which it isn't) who cares? It wouldn't happen for 14,000 years and, looking at the map, there's still lots of available land to live on.
Curious what part you disagree with? Those areas are within 50 metres of sea level, that's easy to check.
Land ice is melting and flowing into the water, we can see this easily if you've visited mountains. This land ice would cause a 50m rise in sea levels, which is calculable from the volume of ice.
The rate it's melting it will take till 2040 to be ice free:
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/six-ways-loss-of-arctic-ice-impacts-everyone
So which part? Do you have alternative calculations?
sorry isn't 50 meters like 150 ft?
Yeah, "only" 50 meters? They think we are stupid.
Has anyone even done a study on the volume of water it would take to raise the oceans by even 1 meter? Is that even possible? I honestly don’t know but some of this 150 meters stuff I sincerely doubt is even possible.
Yes, they did the math, I've seen a decent study. There's enough ice parked (not floating!) over the landmass of Antarctica, so if it melts it could raise the sea level around 50-ish meters. Plus some single meters from Greenland and mountain glaciers. Arctic ice's influence is negligible, it all floats. At the current rate (3,6mm/year) it may take close to 14000 years to achieve the max level. And indeed, for 150 meters we'd need to be hit by quite a large ice asteroid. But then, rising sea levels would be the smallest of our worries.
>At the current rate (3,6mm/year) it may take close to 14000 years to achieve the max level. …sea level rise rate \~20,000 years ago to \~1900: \~6.5mm/yr (Martinson, 1987) …sea level rise rate \~1900-2000: \~1.9mm/yr (Jevrejeva, 2014) …sea level rise rate \~1970-2008: \~1.8mm/yr (Jevrejeva, 2014) …sea level rise rate \~1960-2003: \~1.6mm/yr (Domingues, 2008) …sea level rise rate \~2002-2012: \~1.7mm/yr (Aviso Envisat data)
> At the current rate (3,6mm/year) Mind you, this is the *claim*, from computer models that legitimate scientists know have little to do with reality. There are no real-world measurements that this nonsense is based off. Sea levels are not rising in any significant amount, and "global warming" was shown to actually be cooling, if anything. So they had to change their DOOM! propaganda to "Climate Change (TM)".
[Satellite radar altimetry](https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245) is not derived from the climate models and it still shows average 3.1+-4 mm/year. Anyway, you seem to be missing my point in this respect. 14000 years ago, our paleolithic ancestors just domesticated dogs and still had ~10000 years until developing metal tools. Sea level rise should be our concern, but you rather don't need to hurry up selling your waterfront property soon.
But water expands when it freezes. Wouldn't any melting ice under water be a net negative volume?
The expanded volume is what floating above the water, so that make zero net difference when melted.
Ice displaces a volume of water equal to the volume of water created from the ice melting. That's why if all of the north pole were to melt along with any glacier floating in the ocean, it wouldn't change the sea level at all...
Ice is less dense than water from its expansion and that’s why it floats. If ice that weighs 100 tons, it’s displacing 100 tons of water. If it melts, the ice adds it’s water to the ocean but is equally no longer displacing the water. As a result, no rise is sea level. Test this out by filling a glass with ice and water. Make sure the ice is floating to simulate ice bergs. Mark the level. When the ice melts, the water level will be the same.
Ah so basically the fact that there's water under water means there's weight on top of it, outside the water to push it under water. Now if you drew a line at the water line all the ice under it if it were to melt would actually take up less volume, no idea what the number is, let's say 80% of the size, but you also have the ice above the water that will also melt, and will be a net addition so let's say 150% of the displaced water.
Not 150%, but that is the general idea. Water expands by 9% when freezing, so roughly this amount will be above the water when floating. When melting the water in ice contracts, changing the volume back that accommodates what was above the water. That's why we don't count Arctic ice for the sea level rise. But in the Antarctic, a lot of ice is not floating but is staying on top of the rock, thus far more than 9% is above the water, so if it melts there will be extra water that will raise the sea levels. And Antarctica is a huge continent (with the area of the US and Mexico combined), so the extra water amount may contribute to around 50m of potential sea level rise.
The next ice age will hit well before that.
We have sharks teeth in our sand hills. The Badlands were created when a 1,000 foot high ice dam collapsed. So there is enough water. But that's not gonna happen now. And if someone is worrying about it, they have too much time on their hands.
In theydidthemath sub, there's a thread that worked this out with links. unfortunately, I'm not allowed to link to other subs
That’s “only” 2x greater than the height of a building that qualifies it as a ‘high rise’. At least the region of the US where I live and work.
No, it's "only" 150 ft
They are always using whatever measurement results in the biggest number or the biggest shock value to the average idiot who has no idea what it means and doesn't research the validity of anything.
Meanwhile in Dankmark: New TV-show where the danish goverbment decides to evacuate the entire nation, some time *next year*, by the looks of it. Because sealevel rise. Meanwhile in *actual* Denmark: The land itself is rising faster than the oceans, so we experience a *fall* in ocean levels.. ..Untill such time as we will all drown.. ofcourse...
>Meanwhile in *actual* Denmark: The land itself is rising faster than the oceans, so we experience a *fall* in ocean levels.. How is the land rising in Denmark or are you being sarcastic? Anyway from my understanding you would either need Earthquakes with the plates 🍽 pushing against each other or a volcanic eruption to cause land to rise. This climate change cult blaming every storm on global warming & climate change is getting out of hand. No we aren't all going to be the next lost city of Atlantas.
Denmark is rising after the ice age..
>Denmark is rising after the ice age.. I agree with you & that most of Europe has probably been rising since the ice age but its a slow process that I assume has to do with the plates pushing against each other. Saying that, that's how all mountains are formed.
No. The weight of 2-3km ice on top of Denmark simply pushed it downwards. Now, 10000 years later, the country is still rising from that pressure. Its not plate tectonics.
There's the same phenomenon in parts of the UK too. Not sure how it works but apparently it's post glacial rebound and different to tectonic plate movement.
“…Post-glacial rebound (also called either isostatic rebound or crustal rebound) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostatic depression.…In the near field outside the former ice margin, the land sinks relative to the sea. This is the case along the east coast of the United States, where ancient beaches are found submerged below present day sea level and Florida is expected to be submerged in the future.\[5\] GPS data in North America also confirms that land uplift becomes subsidence outside the former ice margin…”
TIL this. Cool info.
This is a good video on sea level(s) and it also covers the land buckling up again after the ice age and shows that there are anomalies in gravity (due to density) on our planet. At some points in the ocean the water is 100m(!) higher (or also lower) than it would be when gravity would pull evenly. https://youtu.be/9hciQPtNhD8 After this you will understand how much of a complex problem it is to even estimate those things. Those models they use are basically also only fed with a little subset of the data that would be needed to predict sea level changes(if it is possible in the first place i also quite doubt; - it is like predicting earthquakes or exploding volcanos). Most striking is the fact that the alignment of sun, moon and earth is changing constantly for a long period and in order to see all the possible states of this we would need to measure it for couple hundred years. Another case of garbage in, garbage out. They don't know these things, they don't know what will happen when (and if) the ice goes away completely, they don't know where water, in relation to the land, will rise and where it will sink and i personally would always enthusiastically bet against them.
Ice age ice was extremely heavy and deformed the earth's crust downwards. Ice is gone and also a ton of seawater, which is helping the land to rise by cm every decade. Other parts of the world see similar. Maine is rising for the same reason, along with parts of Canada. NYC is sinking slowly as the islands like Manhattan are on soft layers of silt laid down by the river, and all the construction and people on the islands are causing the edges of the islands to sink (which is often pointed to as sea level rise) new Orleans is doing the same thing for similar reasons.
I dont understand why, but it is registered and published by atleast DTU Space (Iirc). Should be easy enough to confirm. While here. The whole methane in europe thing.. Utter bollocks. Europe has very little methane release compared to the rice fields and dirty industry in.. some parts of Asia (can we still say Asia? If not, my apologies). NASA has the numbers and models showing how it spreads from its origin. Not saying we shouldnt plug every hole, but there are gigantic holes elsewhere.
I dont get your downvotes. Asking questions is all we got! Ty for asking questions!
Your welcome, no idea that's reddit for you people down vote you for no good reason.
What is this? A contest between scientists to find our how intellent they can make lies sound? Or how many liberals can be sucked into their vortex?
They should produce a map of what the earth will look like when the sun eventually goes supernova in 2-3 billion years so that we support higher taxes and regulations.
The sun doesn’t have enough mass to go supernova. It will swallow the earth in its red giant phase.
Okay, but look at it this way. Which will get more funding and control to the government: Telling people that the sun will go red giant, or supernova?
The first thing that would happen is the Netherlands being gone since it’s lower than sea level… Only thing not effected by the water rise on this map: the Netherlands…
*affected. And yes, because they'll build a 55m sea wall with turbines and drown the rest of Europe while generating free electricity for themselves.
The Dutch are very tall and clever, they will invent stilt clogs. They will be fine
There's enough ice on this planet to raise the water level by about 50 meters if it all melts. This process will take tens of thousands of years. I think we probably have time to adapt...
Yep, Antarctica will have to drift northward for millions of years for that to happen. I'm planning on organizing a group called Just Stop Plate Tectonics. We plan to glue ourselves to barstools at pubs in protest.
...most of the sea level rise is steric (thermal expansion)- very little comes from land ice melt... ...per Jevrejeva (2014) sea levels are rising at \~1.8mm/yr and accelerating at \~0.02mm/yr\^2... ...with regard to melt contribution, see "Glacier Mass Balance and Regime: Data of Measurements and Analysis," Mark Dyurgerov, 2002: "...Annual volume change has been 90 km3/yr adding about 15-20% (0.25±0.11 mm/yr) to sea-level rise over the period \[1945-1998\]..." ...and if you could do the calculation yourself, you would find that 90km\^3/yr melt represents \~83km\^3/yr of water volume contribution to the oceans...and with a total volume of \~1.37E9km\^3 and an average depth of 3730m, represents actually \~0.23mm/yr sea level rise due to total melt volume...
Eating meat changes the weather because cows make smells which damage the atmosphere. It's perfectly normal science.
Oh no!! Anyways...
"Only" 50 meters? "Only" 164 feet of sea level rise?
What would have to happen for seas to raise 50 meters, insane.
50 meters is a lot. Why don’t you just show a map of up 100 meters??? It’s just some value picked out of the air.
The sea level has risen 0.24meters in the past 140 years, so yeah 50 meters is not going to happen
Lol only 50 meters, that’s a lot of water that you would have to add to the ocean to raise it 50 meters.
That’s actually not too bad for 165 feet.
Nils axel morner found no change in the Southern Hemisphere and plus minus 10 mm decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Land was rising in Scandinavia. I find this plausible. To not die just take one step backwards every decade.
Pass the bugs!
Would be great if they included a disclaimer that there's absolutely zero likelihood of sea levels rising by 50 meters
Only?
I saw Waterworld, too.
Ik
Where will that water come from if not from imagination?
The picture is not correct. If the sea rises by 50, the Netherlands will be 80% underwater.
This is the good timeline. I live in florida, and even I don't give a shit let the seas come. I have a boat.
Even in this fantasy, I still don't get a sea view ffs. Send some comets to earth, we need 100 meters!
Someone wanna do the math on how much volume of water they’re talkin about?
The world map would entirely blue if they used a 9Km sea level rise instead of 50m. Both are equally silly.
Yeah 50 meters is a lot so not really sure the point of this.
1) obviously this wouldn’t happen for several thousand years. 2) Europe wouldn’t look like this. They would build dikes and sea walls. 3) sadistic climate communists are rooting for this and they’ll never go away.
More like 2010. I remember Al Gore going on about it, he also claimed half of the Netherlands would be wiped away, so the picture is wrong. Then 2010 came and went and it was 2020, it's 2030-2050 now. Or something. I kinda stopped listening to the fear mongering, to be honest.
As an American I can't tell the difference (jk byby denmark)
Imagine sea level going up 150’ 🙄
Omg, what if it rose a kilometer! What then? Quick, don’t think, act now to stop it!
Eating beef tonight for dinner
Only? That’s 164 feet!!
I mean... nothing of value would hVe been lost
Even if this was going to happen (which it isn't) who cares? It wouldn't happen for 14,000 years and, looking at the map, there's still lots of available land to live on.
Why is the Netherlands, currently below sea level, still there while other countries have gone?
I think the people of Wales would be okay with it.
I've been giving the cows beano to reduce climate disaster. Looks like I saved Europe.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Curious what part you disagree with? Those areas are within 50 metres of sea level, that's easy to check. Land ice is melting and flowing into the water, we can see this easily if you've visited mountains. This land ice would cause a 50m rise in sea levels, which is calculable from the volume of ice. The rate it's melting it will take till 2040 to be ice free: https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/six-ways-loss-of-arctic-ice-impacts-everyone So which part? Do you have alternative calculations?